John McCain might be taking this maverick thing a bit far. I mean, sending good aviation jobs to France?

At least that's the charge from Boeing backers, who accuse the Arizona senator of helping Airbus get a $35 billion Air Force tanker contract at the expense of American jobs, including hundreds of them right here in the Air Capital.

Boeing supporters, looking for a villain in this economic defeat, have put McCain in their crosshairs.

"I hope the voters of this state remember what John McCain has done to them and their jobs," said Rep. Norm Dicks, a Washington Democrat.

Many Republicans, too, are unhappy with McCain's role.

Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Goddard, told The Eagle editorial board last week that he thought McCain was dead wrong on this issue.

"I'm going to learn to love him," Tiahrt said of his party's nominee, with as much conviction as he could muster.

But Tiahrt clearly wasn't feeling the love on this issue.

Take McCain's comment that creating jobs shouldn't be a factor in military procurement contracts.

Tiahrt begged to differ. "McCain needs to make a decision," he said. "I want him to come down on the side of American jobs."

For many Americans, it's that simple.

McCain, for his part, says he's simply worked hard to ensure a fair competition and the best weapons systems for our troops.

The attacks on McCain may backfire. After all, McCain was right back in 2004 to scuttle the previous tanker deal after he helped expose a bribery scandal involving an Air Force buyer and Boeing executives.

McCain's crusading arguably saved taxpayers billions of dollars and rooted out corruption in the procurement process.

Back then, Boeing's wounds were self-inflicted.

And it's possible the company simply lost on the merits this time around.

If so, that's not McCain's fault.

All sides perhaps should take a deep breath and wait for the General Accounting Office to review Boeing's formal protest -- a ruling is expected within 100 days.

Boeing's main objection seems to be that the Air Force allegedly switched criteria, telling Boeing that a smaller tanker would fit the mission and then rewarding Airbus for its larger plane.

If the Air Force has reasonable explanations for its criteria and evaluation process, then this will blow over.

Of more concern for McCain, though, are reports that he intervened to help Airbus in this latest tanker competition by persuading the Air Force not to disqualify or penalize Airbus for receiving subsidies from European governments.

Again, McCain says he wanted to ensure competition, but Boeing supporters rightly ask: How does ignoring Airbus' subsidies ensure a level playing field?

What could most hurt McCain, I think, are reports that several of his top campaign advisers worked as lobbyists for Airbus last year, during the height of the tanker competition.

Ouch.

Details of their lobbying haven't come out yet. There may be nothing improper in what they did.

But it again shows how McCain, who prides himself on independence and taking on lobbyists, has surrounded himself with staff members who seem to be embedded with the enemy.

That might be the biggest target on McCain's back.

Some have even asked whether McCain's bad publicity on the tanker deal could put Kansas in play this fall for a Democrat such as Barack Obama, who polls well here and has questioned the Airbus contract.

Obama might have a chance in Kansas, but I doubt that McCain's tanker role will be a major factor.

Chances are, the deal will have faded as a hot-button issue by the time the general election gets under way.

But it could return to haunt McCain here, if the perception persists that he helped tipped the scales in Airbus' favor.

Kansans like mavericks, but they also like jobs.

For now, though, the Democratic candidates are too busy mauling each other on issues of gender and race to turn their sights on McCain.

McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has become a favorite target among The Boeing Co. supporters since the company’s loss to the France-based Airbus team in the tanker competition.

McCain, R-Ariz., pressed the Pentagon in 2006 to ignore the issue of alleged foreign government subsidies to Airbus when the tanker contract was put up for competitive bidding. McCain said he did so to ensure competition in a program that was dogged by corruption, scandal and overpricing.

But Boeing proponents argue that those subsidies – which lowered the cost of the Airbus tanker – were one of the reasons Boeing ended up losing the $35 billion competition.

Warner, a respected voice on national security and defense issues who at the time was chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he supported McCain’s efforts.

Boeing is protesting the contract award to the Government Accountability Office.

McCain, a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was an outspoken critic of a previous tanker deal that Chicago-based Boeing had with the Air Force.

McCain’s efforts scuttled that project in 2004 and helped uncover criminal wrongdoing on the part of a former Air Force official and a senior Boeing executive.

Both went to federal prison for conspiracy to violate conflict-of-interest rules after the former Air Force official admitted steering huge contracts to Boeing, including a $20 billion project for aerial tankers.

Boeing paid a record $615 million fine for its role in the tanker scandal and other procurement infractions.

And jobs are crucial to our economy which in turn helps us stay strong. Theres also the factor of depending on foreign nations for our national defense. France didn’t seem too concerned with our national security just a few years ago. Imagine depending on them for some crucial part during a war.

If that was a real concern, then why did the Air Force allow them to submit a proposal in the first place? This is about domestic pork barrel politics, and the real agenda of a lot of so-called “conservatives” out there is showing.

I see the DU pests are recycling this same lame story. Obama is in real trouble now so it time to change the news of the day FAST. I guess Wichita KS is not going for McCain because he did not give Boeing there portion of PORK !

“If that was a real concern, then why did the Air Force allow them to submit a proposal in the first place? This is about domestic pork barrel politics, and the real agenda of a lot of so-called conservatives out there is showing.”

Not so many years ago it was required that all military equipment and material be produced in the US, including uniforms. But that requirement was gradually and quietly abandoned by our free traders in Congress and the White House. I recall a brief spat a few years back when it was learned that a new Army beret would be produced in China.

I expect we’d be shocked to learn what critical equipment and material is now either made overseas, or is dependent on parts from foreign nations.

But it is accepted that the previous Boeing lease deal would have been a huge ripoff of the taxpayer, several involved lost their jobs and I think some were prosecuted.

I think we should return to having all military material and equipment produced in the US. But unless that happens, and since I live in Alabama, screw these whiners. Leave the deal as is. I understand the tanker is superior to that proposed by Boeing.

Not so many years ago it was required that all military equipment and material be produced in the US, including uniforms. But that requirement was gradually and quietly abandoned by our free traders in Congress and the White House. I recall a brief spat a few years back when it was learned that a new Army beret would be produced in China.

Yeah. Yeah. If China should deprive our fighting men and women of their berets, what will we do? Answer: produce them in the US! ...or Pakistan.

The Bushies seem to think that the WoT is the answer to every political question, international and domestic. If they can't link it to the WoT, then they hand the issue to the Democrats. It has a lot to do with why things are the way they are now, not just in Kansas and Ohio.

“The defense industry is about defense. Its not a jobs program. This is pretty cynical even for some Democrats.”

You give the democrats fare too much credit when you accuse them of treating this as a jobs program. Jobs aren’t the democrat issue. The democrats would care less except for the fact that the jobs in Alabama are not union while the jobs at Boeing are union.

19
posted on 03/15/2008 4:50:48 PM PDT
by DugwayDuke
(A true patriot will do anything to keep a Democrat out of the White House.)

EADS/Airbus (at least their calling it right now, and have dropped the Grumman pretense) is openly courting business from our enemies. And you want to spend taxpayer money to prop them up and help them in that endevour?

Sorry, I have a real problem with that. And I don't care how many assembly plants they set up here in the US.

EADS also sells two-way radios (P25) to cops in the USA - no sale of that product?

What of Beretta? (M-9/92F)

Fabrique Nationale? (SAW M249 AKA Mini-mitrailleuse?)

And PLEASE spare me the 'French = white flag crap, the Légion étrangère more than pulled thier weight in the GWI and later in Chad. France has thier own foreign policy, and it may not agree with ours. That's life.

31
posted on 03/15/2008 5:08:34 PM PDT
by ASOC
(I know I don't look like much, bit I raised a US Marine!)

EADS tried to circumvent US law in bid to help Chavez. Last year, the Center for Security Policy cited EADS for its sales to Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez and in January, 2006, the U.S. invoked international arms trade regulations to stop EADS from selling its Spanish-built EADS CASA C-295 and CN-235 transport and patrol planes to Chavez. Under the regulations, known as ITAR, other countries cannot sell military products containing American-made components to third countries without U.S. approval. Since the EADS CASA planes contain dozens of U.S. parts, including engines and unique turboprops, the White House notified EADS and Spain of its objections.

Rather than stop its dealings with Chavez as a reliable U.S. defense partner would be expected to do, EADS immediately tried to circumvent ITAR by stripping out the American-made equipment and trying to find non-U.S. replacements. Only when it was clear that EADS could not come up with the substitute components did the deal officially fall through, in an October, 2006 announcement  nine months after President Bush invoked ITAR.

Working to arm China. Since the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre, the European Union nations have largely stopped their military cooperation and arms sales to Beijing. Over the past few years though, EADS owners in France and its workers in Germany and Spain have agitated to end the embargo. This desire to fully open the technological floodgates was most recently evinced in March by French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie, who while in Japan, continued to declare that the ban was illogical and paradoxical. In fact, she later stated that Chinas burgeoning military might was not a threat but that, what is important is for Chinas military power to be put to the service of peace.[8] It should be noted that the French government is no mere shareholder in EADS; President Jacques Chirac has used his influence to hire and fire the companys top executives and to intervene in management decisions.

Weapons and nuke parts to Iran. As if selling advanced military equipment to China was not bad enough, EADS is also marketing its wares to the Islamic Republic of Iran. In 2005, for example, Eurocopter representatives attended an air show in that country and were seen attempting to sell what they said were civilian helicopters.[9] However, astute observers noticed that EADS promotional videotape for the show was labeled Navy and that that it prominently featured a military helicopter. EADS official Michel Tripier when questioned why they were ignoring U.S. policy to isolate Iran said, As a European company, were not supposed to take into account embargoes from the U.S.

Perhaps even more worryingly, there are concerns that EADS may be inadvertently aiding the Iranian nuclear program. As late as 2005, the company was selling Nickel 63 and so-called Tritium Targets  both crucial to triggering a nuclear explosion  to the South Korean firm Kyung-Do Enterprises. Reportedly, unbeknownst to EADS, the South Koreans were then reselling the nuclear parts a company called Parto Namaje Tolua, a front for the state-owned Iranian firm Partoris.[10] Even if the sale was an accident, it is extremely worrying that EADS did not take the time to verify the end-user of the nuclear materials.

Is that enough for you?

BTW: Did you know Russia owns at least a 5% stake in EADS, and would like more?

Actually, it is not the politics of winning or losing Kansas, it’s the principle of the situation, if Boeing was trying to rip off the US Govt and by extension the US Taxpayer, then they should have lost the contract.

If the pentagon told Boeing they needed a plane that could do “x” then changed that to a plane that could do “y”, then the deal should be scrubbed.

“And PLEASE spare me the ‘French = white flag crap, the Légion étrangère more than pulled thier weight in the GWI and later in Chad. France has thier own foreign policy, and it may not agree with ours. That’s life.”

Exactly. Thats why critical systems like the refueling system should not be foreign made.

“Yeah. Yeah. If China should deprive our fighting men and women of their berets, what will we do? Answer: produce them in the US! ...or Pakistan.”

It involves far more than berets. That was just a fairly amusing example. But production can’t be instantly moved to another location, particularly for more complex items used by the military.

I know I read of two examples of foreign suppliers refusing to resupply the Brits because of their opposition to the war in Iraq. Once was a Swiss company that supplied grenades, and there was another perhaps French company that refused to supply them with some other items.

Allowing any basic production for our military to go overseas is one of the dumber moves that has been made.

Nor do EADS woes end there. Northrop Grumman, EADS bidding partner for a U.S. Air Force contract potentially worth as much as $100 million, has thrown its toys out of the pram too. Northrop is threatening to pull out of the bid altogether unless the Air Force alters the terms of the bid, which it argues is biased toward Boeing, because the contract looks at cost simply in terms of initial outlay, not ongoing operation. Ironically, Boeing was originally awarded the contract, way back in 2001, but it was retracted after a procurement scandal.

>>BTW: Did you know Russia owns at least a 5% stake in EADS, and would like more?<<

I agree with you.

The point is that awarding the contract to EADS increases the risk that unfriendly nations could be involved with our defense suppliers. Russia has long standing relations with Iran. In 1943 Stalin insisted that Roosevelt and Churchill meet him in Tehran.

47
posted on 03/15/2008 7:19:58 PM PDT
by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
(I want to "Buy American" but the only things for sale made in the USA are politicians)

A good acquaintance of mine is an ex Boeing executive (he was a VP in charge of the 767 for a decade). He was shocked that Boeing even got the chance to bid again, considering the criminal acts when the bid first came up in 2002-2003 (for which Boeing staff actually served time in prison).

Boeing in this case lost fair and square, and its incumbent upon our DOD to get the best they can for the dollars equipped. IF we went to war and France did not want to supply us, Boeing would be called upon to get new tankers rolling. We’d use the existing fleet for the year or so until replacements were needed/ready. It’s why you maintain a standing force and supplies - to hold you until you can get more production ramped up.

50
posted on 03/15/2008 7:31:18 PM PDT
by PugetSoundSoldier
(Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.